Nyanzi v Nanyonga and Another (Civil Application 12 of 2010)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

Hearing the application as a single judge, the court held that although rule 6(2)(b) reserves stay-of-execution applications to the full court, practice permits a single judge to hear interim applications in order to do justice. An interim stay requires convincing evidence of imminent danger that the subject matter will suffer irreparable harm, rendering the main application or the appeal nugatory. Here there was no extracted decree, no application for execution had been filed, the alleged survey of the land was denied and unrebutted, and counsel for the applicant conceded there was no evidence the respondents intended to sell the land. The application rested on mere speculation and was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim order of stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant sought an interim order to stay execution in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2006 pending the hearing of his main application for a final order of stay. He alleged imminent danger of execution because the respondents were said to be surveying the disputed land, which would render the appeal nugatory. The first respondent denied any survey had been done or was envisaged, deponing that the mailo title to the land belonged to the Kabaka of Buganda under the management of the Buganda Land Board, that she had occupied the suit land as a customary kibanja holder since 1956, and that no application for execution of the decree in the original High Court Civil Suit No. 208 of 2003 or of the Court of Appeal order in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2006 had been filed. The Court of Appeal order was merely declaratory that the matter was res judicata; no decree had been extracted for execution. At the hearing, counsel for the applicant conceded there were no pending execution proceedings and no evidence that the respondents were planning to sell the land.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established convincing grounds for the grant of an interim order staying execution pending the hearing of the main application for stay of execution.

Orders

• Application for an interim order dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(1)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.50

Cases cited (1)

• THE ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL -Vs- NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY FUND & 2 OTHERS (Civil Application arising from Misc. Application No. 1 of 2009)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nyanzi v Nanyonga & Anor [2010] UGSC 24

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.